Israel: minkä nuorena varastaa, sen vanhana omistaa

Kuuden päivän sodan jälkeen vuonna 1967 Israelin miehittämäksi päätyi laajoja alueita naapurivaltioista sekä Länsiranta ja Gaza entisestä Palestiinan mandaatista. Yleisradion toimittaja Paula Porkka teki seuraavana vuonna sodan seurauksia koskevan laajan reportaasin[1], jossa haastatellaan myös israelilaisviranomaisia. Haastattelut ovat valaisevia, kun niitä vertaa Israelin toimiin nykypäivänä (jos kaikki osat kuuntelee, kriittisiä huomioita voi tehdä myös muiden konfliktin osapuolien toimista).

Vielä vuonna 1968 Israelissa oltiin rehellisiä. Sotilashallinnon edustaja myöntää auliisti Länsirannan olevan kansainvälisoikeudellisesti miehitettyä aluetta, jolla arabien siviiliväestö saa rauhassa jatkaa elämäänsä sotilashallinnon sitoutuessa tiukasti noudattamaan kansainvälistä oikeutta (osa 1 10:23 – 12:42):

Porkka:

“Lieutenant Colonel (nimi jää epäselväksi), the spokesman for the Israeli Military Government on the West Bank. It is now about one year since the war. How is the situation now in the occupied territories?”

Everstiluutnantti:

“Generally we would say that life is going on normally. There are about six hundred thousand inhabitants living in the West Bank, or as we call it Judea and Samaria and I think that in their daily life they hardly feel that they are in an occupied territory. Namely, if you’ve been to the area, you hardly see any Israeli soldiers in the civil centres and we are intervening in the internal life of the population only as less as necessary. If I’ll tell you that the Israelis involved in the administration of the West Bank, the number is about two hundred, that’s all. Two hundred Israelis are governing the whole area.

We have got the headquarters in Jerusalem and as we are functioning strictly according to international law in the area, this is an occupied territory, so therefore for the time being it’s the military which is responsible for the area and we have therefore a military officer as the commander. He has got a staff composed mainly of civilians, namely experts dealing each one with his special field.

For instance, we have got an official dealing with all the agricultural problems, somebody is dealing with all the problems of commerce, education and so on. These are Israelis but all the other functions are run by the Arabs themselves, namely the mayors, the local mayors, are exactly the same ones as before the occupation. The judges are the former Jordanian judges and their verdicts are given according to the former Jordanian Constitution. The policemen are the former Jordanian policemen, the teachers and so on.”

Kansainvälisen oikeuden vastaiset siirtokunnat ovat kuitenkin jo nupullaan. Ulkoministeriön edustaja Gershon Avner kertoo Hebronin tapahtumien olevan häpeä Israelille ja että asiaan on puututtu hallinnollisin toimin niin, ettei asia enää toistu (osa 1 15:45 – 16:12):

Porkka:

”Miehitetyille alueille on lähtenyt Israelista sionistisia siirtolaisia, joita palestiinalaiset eivät ole hyväksyneet.

Did the fact that there are settlers going to Hebron to the occupied territory in Jordan make you a political problem?”

Avnery:

“Yes. It has been embarrassing to the Government. We were unable to prevent it. We have now, as you know, isolated these settlers and the Government has passed an administrative order which would make any such future action impossible.”

Siirtokuntien laittomuus tiedettiinkin heti ja tieto meni myös Israelin pääministerille:

“From the point of view of international law, the key provision is the one that appears in the last paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel, of course, is a party to this Convention. The paragraph stipulates as follows:

“The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

– – –

7. In terms of settlement on the [West] Bank, we are trying not to admit that here too it is a matter of “occupied territory”. We argue that this area of the Mandate on the Land of Israel was divided in 1949 only according to Armistice Lines, which, under the Armistice agreements themselves, had merely military, not political, significance and were not determinative until the final settlement. We go on to say that the agreements themselves were achieved as a temporary measure according to Security Council action based on Article 40 of the United Nations Charter. We also argue that Jordan itself unilaterally annexed the West Bank to the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and that the Armistice Lines no longer exist because the agreements expired due to the war and Arab aggression. We must nevertheless be aware that the international community has not accepted our argument that the [West] Bank is not “normal” occupied territory and that certain countries (such as Britain in its speeches at the UN) have expressly stated that our status in the [West] Bank is that of an occupying state. In truth, even certain actions by Israel are inconsistent with the claim that the [West] Bank is not occupied territory. For example, Proclamation No. 3 of the IDF Forces Commander in the West Bank of 7.6.67, which brings into force the order concerning security regulations (in Section 35), states that:

“A military court and the administration of a military court will observe the provisions of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War in everything relating to legal proceedings and where there is conflict between this order and the aforementioned Convention, the provisions of the Convention will prevail”.

With regard to Gush Etzion, settlement there could to a certain extent be helped by claiming that this is a return to the settlers’ homes. I assume that there are no difficulties here with the question of property although the matter requires close examination. With regard to Gush Etzion too, we have to expect, in my view, negative international reaction on the basis of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, in our settlement in Gush Etzion, evidence of intent to annex the [West] Bank to Israel can be seen.

On the possibility of settlement in the Jordan Valley, the legal situation is even more complicated because we cannot claim to be dealing with people returning to their homes and we have to consider that problems of property will arise in the context of the Hague Regulations. I cannot go further into this question without having a lot more detail.”[2]

Israelilaisarvion oikeaan osuneisuus näkyy useissa Haagin kansainvälisen tuomioistuimen ratkaisuissa; kts. esim. kappaleet 78 (s. 35), 86 – 101 (s. 39 – 177) ja 115 – 122 (s. 49 – 52) tuomioistuimen neuvoa-antavasta lausunnosta 9.7.2004[3]. Sanoma on lyhyesti tiivistettynä: toisen maalle ei saa rakentaa. Israelin kehittämän kiistanalaisuusdoktriininkin kannalta asuttamisen viisaus on helposti kyseenalaistettavissa: jos varmuutta omistusoikeudesta ei ole, onko tuollaiselle alueelle viisasta rakentaa?

Kansainväliselle yhteisölle, Israel mukaan luettuna, on siis jo vuodesta 1967 alkaen ollut selvää, että Länsiranta ja Gaza ovat miehitettyjä alueita, joille ei saa siirtää miehittäjävaltion siviiliasutusta (Gazan nykystatukseen en puutu enempää). Tämä ei kuitenkaan ole estänyt Israelia edistämästä uudisasutusta viime aikoina jopa pogromeilla[4] eikä häpeästä ole enää tietoakaan – paremminkin on kyse röyhkeydestä. Israel toimii siis kuin joskus varastettu olisi muuttunut omaksi omaisuudeksi.

Äskettäin 12 valtiota, Suomi muiden muassa, julkaisi Israelin toimia Länsirannalla koskevan kannanoton:

“1. The Government of Israel’s actions in the West Bank are undermining the possibility of a two-state solution. The situation is rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project. UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, the President of France Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney have agreed on the need to take action to prevent further damage.

2. Today,Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UKconfirm their intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures. In this regard, the UK, France and Canada welcome the important action already taken by Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and Norway and will bring forward national measures to ban trade in settlement goods.

3. Together, we are resolute: the two-state solution must be protected, and we will take action in pursuit of a just and lasting peace, based on the principles enshrined in the New York Declaration adopted one year ago. We firmly oppose actions tantamount to the annexation of Palestinian land and forcible displacement of the Palestinian population.

4. The Government of Israel must immediately halt the expansion of settlements and civilian administrative powers, ensure accountability for settler violence, and investigate allegations against Israeli forces.

5. We recognize Israel’s legitimate security interests and reiterate our condemnation of the Hamas 7 October terrorist attack, the worst antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust. We are clear in our determination to tackle antisemitism wherever it occurs. We are unequivocally committed to the two-state solution, in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions, that enables Israel and a sovereign, democratic and viable Palestinian state to live side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition within secure and internationally recognised borders.”[5]

On jo korkea aika toteuttaa YK:n Palestiinan jakoehdotuksen idea vuodelta 1947 kokonaisuudessaan; puolitiehen jättö on jo tuottanut aivan liikaa kärsimystä kaikille osapuolille.

Terveisin Kalevi Kämäräinen

[1] Vuosi kuuden päivän sodan jälkeen 1: Voittiko Israel?;

https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2014/08/29/vuosi-kuuden-paivan-sodan-jalkeen

[2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jerusalem,13 Elul 5727 18 September 1967 Subject: Settlement in the Administered Territories;  https://www.militarycourtwatch.org/files/server/file48485.pdf

[3] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf

[4] France 24 24.7.2026 “Netanyahu orders new West Bank settler outposts, legalises existing ones after deadly clash”;

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20260724-four-palestinians-and-one-israeli-killed-in-occupied-west-bank-shooting, oma blogini 17.9.2026 ”Israel: pogromi on pogromi, vaikka voissa paistaisi”; https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/kalevikamarainen/israel-pogromi-on-pogromi-vaikka-voissa-paistaisi/

[5] https://um.fi/current-affairs/-/asset_publisher/gc654PySnjTX/content/statement-of-the-foreign-ministers-of-canada-denmark-finland-france-iceland-ireland-norway-poland-portugal-spain-sweden-and-the-uk-on-the-two-state-solution/35732